Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2006 Oct;64(4):530-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2005.12.014.

Video capsule endoscopy compared with standard endoscopy for the evaluation of small-bowel polyps in persons with familial adenomatous polyposis (with video)

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Video capsule endoscopy compared with standard endoscopy for the evaluation of small-bowel polyps in persons with familial adenomatous polyposis (with video)

Robert F Wong et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) may be useful for surveillance of small-bowel polyps in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).

Objective: To compare VCE to standard endoscopy for diagnosing small-bowel polyps in a defined segment of small bowel (proximal to a tattoo) and the entire examined small bowel.

Design: Prospective.

Setting: Single tertiary referral center.

Patients: Participants with FAP (n = 32). The majority were selected for their high number of proximal small-bowel polyps and prior endoscopic tattoo placement in the proximal small bowel.

Interventions: VCE (interpreted by 2 readers), push enteroscopy (PE), and lower endoscopy (LE) to count and measure small-bowel polyps.

Results: In the defined segment, VCE detected a median of 10.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0-19.0) and 9.0 (IQR, 6.0-16.0) polyps for each reader compared with a median of 41.0 (IQR, 19.0-64.0) polyps on PE (P = .002). Agreement between the 2 methods was fair (kappa = 0.34, 0.36). Agreement between VCE and PE was poor to fair (kappa = 0.10, 0.22) for estimating the size of the largest polyp and poor (kappa = -0.20, -0.27) for detecting large polyps (> or =1 cm). In the entire examined small bowel, VCE diagnosed a median of 38.0 (IQR, 10.5-71.5) and 54.0 (IQR, 13.0-100.0) polyps for each reader compared with a median of 123.0 (IQR, 38.5-183.0) for combination endoscopy (PE and LE) (P < .001). Agreement between the 2 methods was fair to moderate (kappa = 0.21, 0.56).

Limitations: Participants selected for high polyp burden, and results may not be applicable to all patients with FAP.

Conclusions: VCE underestimates the number of small-bowel polyps in persons with FAP and does not reliably detect large polyps.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

MeSH terms